Future revolutions

15. Post-parliamentary non-Party state

The collapse of USSR's one-party BG State came as a surprise to most people, including all Marxists. More such surprises are in store for people in multi-party states. Ours is the era of decline of political parties, of rule by representatives (RR) and of states run by political parties. Today most people everywhere loathe all political parties. This will apply to all new parties formed in the future. The days of rule by political parties are numbered. Political Parties are organizations to advocate particular policies. For centuries they also decide policies while citizens decide only which party shall rule. Parties winning elections nominate Cabinets to decide all policies. This is the "multi-party state". Many believe that this State, together with freedom of the Press and speech is "Democracy". Actually, this has nothing to do with democracy. In genuine democracy there are no elections and no House of Representatives since all citizens - not representatives - decide all policies. Rule by representatives (RR) contradicts democracy. The word "Democracy" means that the entire community ("Demos") - not its representatives - decides all policies. The "Demos" is "the community of all citizens" and "Kratos" is "the role of deciding for all". In Demos-kratia all citizens can propose and vote on all issues of society. Those who think democracy means free elections will be surprised to hear that in democracy there are no elections. Citizens deciding who to elect have authority to decide whether to have elections at all. All citizens - not their representatives - are the sovereign. When all citizens decide all issues of society, elections are obsolete as no representatives - for deciding policy - are needed. In democracy all citizens decide all policies and nominate by lottery - not by election - people to execute them. The belief that Democracy means rule by representatives is a monstrous misconception. Only those ignorant of what "democracy" is - or eager to distort it - share this belief.

When representatives rule 99.99% of the citizens cannot decide any policy. This contradicts democracy. In RR citizens can decide only who will decide for them. Today RR is in deep trouble because most people everywhere mistrust all representatives and their rule. People realize elections are the source of political corruption, conspiracies, and favouritism. People’s mistrust of RR can be measured by the numbers of those who ignore elections. In the recent elections to US Senate and House of Representatives (Nov. 2006) only 40% of the electorate bothered to vote. This trend has persisted for the last 40 years. Non-voting is a vote of "No confidence" in the "elect your ruler" system. So why does RR persist? Because most people do not realize there is a post-parliamentary democratic alternative to RR.

“Freedom” means "living by one's own decisions". People are “Free” when they live according to their own decisions. For a long time people thought that if they decide who decides for them what society should do - they are free. Nowadays they no longer think so. They realized that if they cannot trust their representatives then their freedom is like that which Henry Ford granted his customers when he said: "Customers are free to choose any colour of car they want, provided it is Black". Actually, elections - even if they are 100% trustworthy - contradict political freedom. as they authorize a few to decide what all must do. Today all citizens live by decisions made by a few representatives therefore they are not free.

Total freedom is impossible when people live in a group. Even in a loving couple, one must, occasionally, accept decisions of the other. When one lives by decisions made by others one isn't free. Whenever people live in a group, be it a couple, a sports team, a commune, a political party, a music band, or society, they give up part of their freedom for the sake of living together. Different political systems have different levels of freedom. In RR, citizens have more freedom than in a monarchy, as they can at least decide who will decide for them. In a one-party state members of the ruling party can elect the leader of the party, so they have more freedom than in a Dictatorship where they cannot choose the dictator. In a multi-party state citizens can choose the ruling party, so they have more freedom than in a one-party State. Those disillusioned by the phoney freedom of the multi-party State - as most people today are - have not yet realized that an alternative (with more freedom) to the multi-party system is possible. Lacking an alternative, they stick to the outdated multi-party State.

In 1991 most citizens of the USSR and all "Eastern Block" countries rejected Lenin's One-Party BG state despite the benefits its socialized, planned, economy conferred on them. Rejecting the One-party BG state they chose a Multi-party State, but what can those disillusioned by the Multi-party State choose?

The alternative to the multi-party state is the non-party state.

A non-party state can be set up if political parties do not decide policies for others. Parties can advocate policies. They can try to convince citizens to vote for particular policies, but only all citizens - not representatives - can vote on policies.

In such a state every adult citizen has one vote on every issue of society so there are no elections - and no Parliament. All citizens are the parliament. In such a state there is a continuous public debate on policies. They are discussed and decided without politicians (see next chapter). This is political equality and direct democracy (DD).

The prime issue of all politics is: "Who Decides?" not "What to decide?". Before asking: “Shall we go to war?” ask “Who decides whether we go to war?” ask not “How much tax shall we pay?” but “Who decides how much tax we shall pay?” not “What will our taxes be used for?” but “Who decides what our taxes be used for?”

There are different answers to “Who should decide”. Monarchists say: a King. Fascists say: A Dictator. Republicans say: Elected representatives. Intellectuals say: Experts must decide. Party members say: my Party must decide. Genuine democrats say: all citizens must decide. “Who decides” is also the central issue in every family, in every place of work, in every site of education, in every borough and municipality.

Today, replacing Houses of Representatives by all citizens voting directly on all policies is the only really revolutionary project. Today‘s revolutionary principle is: "No taxation by representatives" and "Citizens pay no tax without the right to vote directly on it". This updates the old, anti-Monarchist demand "No taxation without representation". Turning decision-obeyers into decision-makers abolishes separation of rulers from ruled. Citizens become self-ruled. When citizens live by their own decisions they are free. Today most people in most societies mistrust most politicians and all political parties. Even supporters of a party often mistrust it. Many vote for whom they consider “the lesser evil”. Things were different in the past. Before WW2 most people trusted politicians and parties they voted for. Most Germans trusted Hitler until his death. Most Russians trusted Stalin, most Britons trusted Churchill, most Japanese trusted Hirohito, most Americans trusted F.D.R. and many Frenchmen trusted de Gaulle. "Trust" is a conviction that the trustee will keep his promises. It does not mean acceptance of his views, as the British electorate in 1945 proved.

The British General Election on 5 July 1945, a mere 2 months after the end of WW2 in Europe, was one of the most significant events of the 20th century. Final counts were declared on July 26, 1945 after counting the votes of soldiers serving overseas. Held shortly after Victory in Europe Day (May 8), it was the first UK general election since 1935 as general elections had been suspended during WW2. It resulted in a stunning defeat of the Conservative Party led by Winston Churchill and a landslide victory of the Labour Party led by the unknown Clement Attlee, who won a majority of 145 seats. The British electorate trusted Churchill, but disagreed with his policies. The result of the election was totally unexpected, given the heroic status of Winston Churchill, Britain's Prime Minister during WW2. It reflected the voters' belief that a post-war Britain built by the Labour Party would be better than one built by the Conservative Party. Labour promised a nationalised economy and Health Service while Churchill and the Conservatives wanted to reconstruct the old free market economy and services. Churchill declared that Attlee's "Welfare State" program would require a Gestapo-like body to implement it. This created much resentment. Voters respected Churchill's wartime record but opposed the Conservative Party's domestic and foreign policies - with all the unemployment, poverty and misery they had created before the war. Most UK citizens did not want this type of economy to reappear. Labour had also been given, during the war, the opportunity to display their competence in government on domestic issues by their leaders Ernest Bevin, Herbert Morrison and Attlee at the Ministry of Labour. Their administration was efficient.

Clement Attlee's 1945 government was the most radical British government of the 20^th century. It nationalized the Bank of England, the coal mines, electricity, gas, railways and iron & steel. It created the National Health Service under Health minister Aneurin Bevan which to this day the Labour party still considers its proudest achievement. Originally the NHS provided "cradle to grave" health services free of charge to all citizens. The "Welfare State" was Labour's response to the influence that the economic benefits of the state-owned economy of USSR had had on many people in the UK. The Labour Party did not want to replace the BB economy of the UK by a socialized, planned, economy. The Labour Party was - and remains - committed to reforms, not to revolution, but it was under pressure from a considerable part of the electorate, especially industrial workers and soldiers, whose respect and sympathy for the USSR grew during WW2 due to the heroic - and immense - battles of the "Red Army" against the Nazi Army. No battle of the US or UK armies came anywhere near in size and ferocity to the battles of Stalingrad, Kursk, or Leningrad, which cost the "Red Army" millions of casualties. The city of Leningrad was under siege for 30 months and hunger forced some people to eat the dead. No British or American city was under siege during WW2. All history books and films made in the US and UK minimize the role of the USSR in WW2 and maximize the roles of the USA and UK. They also hide the fact that British and American BB financed Hitler's re-armament of Germany till 1938. Yet any comparison of numbers of casualties in US, UK, and USSR armies - and the destruction each of these countries suffered - demonstrates clearly that the brunt of the burden of defeating Nazi Germany was carried by the USSR. Hitler violated the Versailles Treaty by building his huge army. US, UK, and French BB ignored - and financed - this knowing it would be used against Lenin’s State-owned economy. After WW2 British soldiers admired the "Red Army" and the social benefits of USSR’s economy, like guaranteed employment, state-paid housing, healthcare, education and pensions. This admiration reached a level that led many to believe that after WW2 British soldiers would start a revolution in Britain. These attitudes swept the Labour Party into office in 1945 and created the Welfare State.

In 1945 most people, in most countries, still trusted most politicians. In those days each political party published its political programme describing what it would do if it achieved power. Voters studied party programs carefully and voted for the one whose political program appealed to them most. Many voters also considered the reliability of party leaders. Most parties had a record of broken promises in past elections and this deterred some voters, but most voted for the program that appealed to them.

All this changed in 1952 when the US Presidential election campaign used TV to promote a political party and a presidential candidate. The Republican Presidential candidate General Eisenhower (referred to as "Ike") was marketed like a brand of toothpaste. His image, not his political program, was the prime product. A notable ad for “Ike” was an issue-free animated cartoon with a song by Irving Berlin called “I Like Ike”. The ads for Eisenhower were short, snappy and upbeat, and often relied on catchy animation just like ads for consumer goods. A very effective Eisenhower TV spot repeated relentlessly the refrain: "I like Ike. You like Ike. Everybody likes Ike - for President." Eisenhower himself was infuriated by the ad-film director's instructions telling him to stare into some vacant corner on the ceiling without saying anything. This image was later imposed on shots of interviews with random people in the street creating the impression that "Ike" listened attentively to their views. The Republicans' political programme was not mentioned, but Ike won the elections by a big majority.

From this moment on the marketing approach to politics dominated all political campaigns on TV. Parties began “to sell” their programmes rather than “to explain” them. The spirit of TV commercials began to permeate politics. TV is primarily a visual medium. Most viewers remember what they saw, not what they heard. Party programs and speeches are verbal. They make poor images so they rarely appear on TV. What appears on TV is a politician whose looks and gestures aim to attract voters. People watching politicians on TV wonder more whether they are trustworthy than what their political programs are. In political elections today images are “in” and ideas are "out". As TV watchers outnumber book readers a general transformation of peoples’ consciousness began: images overshadowed ideas.

TV close-ups often reveal qualities invisible in still photos. They magnify intonations, body-language, facial expressions, and unintentional gestures. When physicist Robert J. Oppenheimer, who supervised the scientific side of constructing the first Atom-Bomb, gave a rare TV interview, he stared continuously at the floor, giving a clear impression of being haunted by guilt. This stayed in viewers’ memory long after the content of his words faded away.

Most politicians on TV are too eager to "sell" themselves as "honest". Excessive eagerness creates a manipulative image. Therefore today most politicians seem to viewers - who see dozens of commercials daily - as manipulative salesmen. This increases mistrust of politicians, of political parties, and of politics generally.

Most people today mistrust politicians. They make pre-election promises - designed to attract voters - and repeatedly break them after elections. Fifty years of broken promises have convinced most voters that all political parties, and politicians, are untrustworthy. Many think this is inevitable in politics. Lord Acton's dictum: " Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is seen by many as "Objective truth". However, few ask themselves what exactly does "Power" mean? The answer is simple: in politics "Power" is "the role of deciding for others". To decide - for others - what all in society shall do. If I can decide only for myself what society should do, I have no political power. If I have the role of deciding for 10 people what society will do, I have some political "power". If I have the role of deciding for 100 million people what society will do I have a lot of political "power". "Politics" is "deciding what society will do". A "Policy" is "a decision about an entire society". "Power” is "the role of deciding for others". "Political Power" is "the role of deciding for others what an entire society will do".

Who grants roles to decide for others? In the past people believed God does. In coronation ceremonies the Head of the Church placed a crown on the head of a Monarch. This meant: "God grants this person the role of deciding policy for all the King’s subjects". Whoever opposed the King - opposed God. This is no longer accepted. So who grants political representatives today the roles to decide policy for all citizens? Those who vote for them. Voters replaced the Head of the Church. Their voting puts the crown of decision-maker on the head of those they elect. Elections grant the role of deciding policy. Elections transfer authority to decide policy from voters to those they vote for. By voting citizens pass their role of policy-deciders to representatives. This cancels - temporarily - their roles as policy-deciders. Once they have voted they have handed their authority to decide policy to those they voted for. If they are unhappy about the way the roles are used they must wait for new elections.

Authority to decide whom to elect is authority to decide whether to elect. Why hand others the role of deciding policies for us? We have authority to abolish elections. The electorate is sovereign. It can decide all policies itself - without representatives.

By voting for politicians we hand them our authority to decide policies. Our voting transfers our political authority to others. If we don't vote we retain our authority to decide policies, but what can we do with it? In RR - nothing. If we don’t vote others will vote and elections will authorize others as before, while we are stuck with our authority but unable to use it. However, we can vote to abolish elections and scrap RR How can citizens use their authority to decide policies? By creating a political system where every citizen can vote directly on every policy.

Such a system is a direct democracy (DD) where the citizens themselves - not representatives - decide directly what their society should do. This can also be called a non-party state as this State is not run by political parties but directly by all its citizens. Political Parties can - and will - exist in such a state but they will not decide policies. They will only recommend policies. They will work to convince citizens to vote for - or against - particular policies, but they will not decide on behalf of the citizens. Voting on all policies will be done - all the time - by all citizens.

Deciding policy is a crucial part of running society. Once a decision is made it must be carried out. How? In a one-party or multi-party state this is done by a tiny group known as "Government" or "Cabinet". In a non-party state there are no elections and no Parliament and there is no government. State departments for Health, Education, Transport, Treasury, Defence, etc. exist, but they are not run by a Minister (or Secretary) appointed by a political party. In a non-party state those responsible for carrying out policy-decisions are appointed - at regular intervals - by lottery. Lots are drawn from pools of people with the necessary expertise, skill, and knowledge. Nomination by lottery abolishes conspiracies, favouritism, corruption and inefficiency caused by elections. TV panels drawn by lottery will advise the public on policies, costs and consequences. Lottery-drawn panels will include a variety of views, often conflicting with each other. All appointees must be changed regularly. This will cancel any panel's bias. Political problems are often created by politicians seeking to boost their careers, roles, and power. The ethnic war in former Yugoslavia created by Milošhevic in the 1990s is a typical example. A non-party state cleanses politics of personal power as no citizen can decide for others. It relieves politics of problems caused by politicians’ egos. When all citizens decide all policies personal power ceases to play a role in politics. All citizens - not a few politicians - decide political issues. Preferences of citizens vary, so choices are balanced by counter choices. This reduces personal bias in politics. The greater the number of political decision-makers, the less does policy depend on personal bias. A State where every citizen can vote on every issue of society and those responsible for executing policies are appointed by lottery is a non-party state. It abolishes political power - and political representatives. This greatly reduces costs, conspiracies, and corruption. No one is paid for deciding policy so all costs of politicians, parliaments, presidents, and their perks are saved. Direct democracy is much cheaper, much more efficient, free from personal bias and less prone to corruption and conspiracy than any form of rule by representatives.

16. Politics without Power?

"The absurdity of all inherited political thought consists precisely in trying to resolve people's problems for them, whereas the sole political problem is precisely this: How can people themselves become capable of resolving their own problems?" (Cornelius Castoriadis. Introduction to Vol.1 of "Political and Social Writings" University of Minnesota Press 1988, p. 21)

The following two chapters answer Castoriadis's question.

"Politics” is "deciding what society will do". "Power" is "the role of deciding for others". In the past very few people, often one person ("King", "President", "Dictator") played the role of deciding for all citizens what their society should do. People for whom others decide are not free since to be free means to live by one's own decisions. Only those who live by their own decisions are free. Those who live by decisions of others are not free. Those who decide for others are said to have "Power" which is "the role of deciding for others". Many crave power for its own sake and achieve it, almost always by plotting and scheming. The more people one can decide for the more Power one has. Many want to decide for others what they should do, in the family, in school, at work, or in the state. To achieve this they exploit other people's ignorance or resort to conspiracies, lies, and bribes. Lord Acton observed: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". This was - and remains – true but what is “Power”? Most people equate "Power" with "Politics". "Politics" is "Deciding what an entire society should do". Many believe that in societies numbering millions this can only be done by a few deciding for all. However, today, when millions of TV viewers vote by SMS this is no longer true. Efforts to achieve power breed conspiracy and corruption. No wonder most people today are disgusted with politics. They believe that conspiracy and corruption are part of politics. Actually they are part not of politics but of Power. The flaw is in equating "Politics" with “Power”. The two are utterly different. "Politics" is "deciding what an entire society should do" while "Power" is “role of deciding for others". Only when a few decide what all should do are politics based on "Power". Is it possible to conduct politics without using power? Is there a way to decide what a big society should do without a few deciding this for millions?

Most people think this is impossible. They see no relation between the electronic communication revolution - and politics. They have never understood what Marx understood 150 years ago, namely, that new technologies modify behaviour, expectations, morality - and politics. Today, by using mobile phones, the Internet, magnetic cards, and TV, it is possible to create a political system where every citizen can propose, debate, and vote on every issue of society and no one decides for others. In such a system every citizen decides for –and by - him/her -self only.

When no one decides for others no one has power. In such a system there would be no elections, no representatives, no house of representatives, no "Government", no "Power". All citizens would govern themselves. This is technically possible today.

Such a system is a direct democracy. "Demos" in Greek means "community" and "Kratos" (“Power”) means "the role of deciding for others". "Demos-Kratia" means "Community power" or "All citizens decide all policies". Such a system existed in ancient Athens some 2500 years ago and lasted for some 200 years. In the past it was impossible for millions of citizens to have a direct democracy because the technical means to enable millions of citizens to propose, debate, and vote, on policy proposals, and to count all votes quickly, did not exist. Therefore most people agreed that a few representatives would decide policies for all citizens. These few had political power while most citizens lacked it. Ancient Athens was exceptional as all its free men (but not women and slaves) decided themselves what their city should do. The number of free Athenian men was around 50,000, and the city was divided into 50 districts with 1000 citizens in each. They invented elaborate devices for voting and counting votes. In such a system no citizen decided for others. Each citizen had one vote and decided for himself only. This abolished "Power" in politics and eliminated corruption and conspiracies. Only those opposing democracy, who tried to overthrow it, resorted to conspiracy and corruption.

Mass participation in public debates on policy in ancient Athens produced Philosophy, the Theatre, notions like Tragedy and Comedy, logical reasoning, critiques of Politics and of History, trial by jury, and even public debates on military strategy. These innovations were unique to Athenian democracy and although invented 2500 years ago, we still use them today. Most of our political concepts were invented by Athenian democracy. By contrast, in Sparta - not far from Athens, two kings ruled - without any public debates on policy - and therefore Sparta left no political heritage useful to us today. Nor did Egypt, Babylon, India or China.

Athenian democracy, despite its many advantages, had its hazards and difficulties, but the freedom its members enjoyed outweighed all of them.

Today most people find the idea of a state where every citizen has the right to propose, debate, and vote on every policy, bizarre, impractical, and at best utopian. The following is intended to stimulate a re-thinking of this outdated response.

First of all it is necessary to realize that the modern electronic communication makes the participation of millions of citizens in decision-making technically feasible. The mobile telephone with a camera and a link to the Internet enables millions of citizens to vote by sending SMS messages, to have their IDs checked, and to add up all votes, in a matter of minutes. This is already done in TV programmes like "A star is born". People can vote on decisions by sending SMS messages and their "Bio-metric" ID (which will soon be part of every passport). A database of citizens' Biometric ID will enable instant identification. This will ensure that only citizens will vote and no one will vote twice. All the problems of sending, identifying, and adding up, millions of votes within minutes, can be solved by the electronic communication. Many solutions already exist. Privacy can be protected. Technical obstacles to direct democracy (DD) that seemed insurmountable in 1968 have been overcome.

To give an idea how such a state might work, consider the following possibility: Each domain of society is allocated a radio and a TV channel. There are channels dedicated to Education, to Health, to Transport, to Commerce, to Defence, etc. Every channel operates non-stop 24 hours throughout the year. In each channel a panel of people with qualifications relevant to the debated topic discuss the pros and cons of every proposal. Members of panels are drawn by lottery from pools of people with the required qualifications. Panel members serve like Jury members in courts of law. They are drawn by lottery and replaced regularly. This abolishes bias. When a citizen phones in a proposal it is listed, and when its turn arrives it is discussed by the panel. Viewers can phone to add their comments. The debate on each proposal lasts a fixed period determined by the Constitution. When this time is up citizens are notified and voting starts. People vote by mobile phone, magnetic card, or the Internet.

A period set by the Constitution determines the time allocated for discussing and for voting. When this is up the votes are counted and if they exceed a minimum - determined by the Constitution - the proposal enters a second round of debates and voting. The Constitution itself is shaped by all citizens. Every citizen can find out on radio or TV which proposal entered a second round, and participate in a second round of debate. When debating time is up a second vote is taken. If the proposal gains the required majority (a simple majority, a preferential majority, a local majority, or an overall majority) it becomes a policy binding the society. One year after this vote, citizens can start a new debate to revoke it.

Once a policy has been decided a panel for executing it is drawn by lottery from pools of those who have the required qualifications. The executing panel has to report at regular intervals on radio and TV to all citizens on the progress of its work.

Such a system for deciding and carrying out policy is technically feasible. It may encounter difficulties, but none are insurmountable. In such a state there are no elections, no representatives, and no government. No one gets paid for deciding policy so cost of governance is greatly reduced. Such are politics without power. Moreover, abolishing elections cleanses politics of conspiracies and corruption caused by people craving personal power - or favours.

Political equality, granting every citizen one vote on every issue of society, creates post-parliamentary democracy, politics without politicians, and without power. This is cheaper, cleaner, and far more democratic than rule by representatives. Such a system will turn the state - and the economy - into an authentic democracy. If this is applied to every place of work, so all employees can decide all about their work, then management and unions become redundant. This will terminate a lot of anguish, frustration, strife and strikes.

This leaves us with sociological and psychological objections to direct democracy.

The first - and most common - objection to DD argues that political decisions are complicated matters and require expertise that most citizens lack. Can ordinary citizens, lacking the necessary knowledge, determine a policy? This objection assumes policies are “deduced”. Actually they are “decided”. People confuse “Deciding” with “deducing”. This is a widespread, common, error. "Deciding" is not "Deducing". Decisions are choices determined by priorities whereas deductions are conclusions determined by Logic. We don’t deduce decisions. We choose them. There are six differences between deciding and deducing:

1) Deciding depends on options and priorities. Deducing depends on data and Logic.

2) To "decide" is to choose one option from a number of options. If only one option exists there is nothing to decide. Choosing is preferring and depends on priorities (see p.12) not on Logic. Different priorities shape different preferences and decisions on the same data. Deciding is not a skill. It cannot be learnt. Deducing - unlike deciding - is a sequence of logical inferences applied to the data. It overrules priorities. It overrules preferences. It applies logical deduction to data reaching a final "conclusion". Conclusions ignore priorities. We cannot choose a conclusion. Data and logic impose conclusions on us. We must accept them even when we prefer different ones. A conclusion has nothing to do with choosing. It is imposed by data, logic, and knowledge. Policies are not deduced, they are decided.
3) Decisions are ‘good’ or ‘bad’, not ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’. There are no incorrect decisions, only bad ones. Voting for Hitler was "bad" but not "incorrect".

Deductions are ‘correct’ or "incorrect" but neither "good’ nor ‘bad’.  There are no bad deductions, only incorrect ones. 2+2=5 is "incorrect" but not "bad"

4) A decision considered "Good" by some is often considered "Bad" by others.

A deduction is accepted as "correct" - or "incorrect" - by all.

5) Those making a decision are responsible for its outcome as they could make a different decision - by changing their priority - and get a different outcome. Those deducing a conclusion are not responsible for its outcome as they could not deduce another - correct - conclusion. They are responsible only for its logical correctness, not for its outcome.
6) Data determines deduced conclusions, not decisions.

Given the same data different people will deduce the same conclusion, but - if their priorities differ - they will make different decisions using the same data.

To clarify further the difference between deciding and deducing, let us compare Hamlet pondering “To be or not to be?” with a doctor pondering “To amputate or not to amputate? Hamlet has two options. He must decide which to choose. He cannot deduce it. His priorities shape his preference. Knowledge and logic cannot help him. They do not determine what is ‘Good’ for him. His priority (see p.12) does. Hamlet must decide what to do. A doctor must deduce what to do. His priorities are irrelevant. His deducing depends on data, logic, and experience leading to a correct conclusion.  If the conclusion is ‘Bad’ ("the patient has cancer") the doctor is not to blame.  Doctors are responsible only for their deducing being "correct" not for it being "Good".
Imagine a patient suffering from pain in the leg. Analyzing medical test-results the doctor deduces the patient has cancer and says: “Amputation will enable you to live longer; without it, you’ll die soon.”  Analyzing the medical data by using medical expertise and logic, the doctor deduces a single medical conclusion (‘diagnosis’). If the conclusion is incorrect it is due to faulty data or wrong deduction but not due to the doctor’s priorities. 
Medical data and logical deduction determine a doctor’s conclusion but they do not determine a patient’s decision how to respond to this conclusion. Doctors deduce but patients decide. Different patients hearing the same conclusion will make different decisions. Some will decide to die rather than live as disabled, others will decide to live as disabled rather than die.  As all decisions respond to the same conclusion ("diagnosis") of the doctor one might wonder which decision is “Good”? Can the same data and diagnosis lead to different - even contradicting - decisions, yet all “Good”? Surprising as it may seem the answer is: Yes! for the simple reason that different patients have different priorities. Some prefer death to disability; others prefer disability to death.  Both decisions are ‘Good’ for those who made them, as they result from different priorities, not from data, expertise or logic.  Different people have different priorities. There is no absolute priority to grade priorities since this too depends on an arbitrary priority.
What has all this got to do with politics?

Or, put another way: are policies ‘deduced’ or are they 'decided' ? 

In politics people vote. To vote is to choose. If we choose we don’t deduce. If we deduce we cannot choose. To choose is to prefer: People prefer according to their priorities. Whoever decides policy - King, Dictator, President, Prime Minister, Leader, or ordinary citizen - prefers one option to all others. Preference depends on priorities. Only people believing their priority is “Absolute Truth”, or “Natural”, or “Obvious”, think they deduce policies. As decisions depend on priorities and every priority is arbitrary we “decide” policy. We do not “deduce” it. The same data-expertise-logic can produce different decisions due to different priorities.

Politics means choosing, not deducing.  We choose a policy; we don’t deduce it. Those making a decision are responsible for its outcome as they could decide differently and get a different outcome. Those deducing a conclusion cannot deduce differently to get a different conclusion. They are not responsible for its outcome

Politicians whose decisions produce undesirable results try to evade their responsibility for such results by saying “I had no alternative”, arguing that their decisions were conclusions.  In politics other options always exist. Choosing an option is always a decision, never a deduction.

Choosers are responsible for the outcome of their choices.

How does all this answer the objection that most people lack the requirements necessary for deciding policy? It clarifies that deciding policy is choosing an option - according to one's priorities - and does not depend on expertise or logic.

Any citizen can choose just like any President.

Rarely are political decision-makers experts on issues they decide. They don't need to be. They consult experts on any issue who explain to them the various options - and the possible outcome of every decision, then they choose one option. Decision-making is a role, not a skill. Decision-makers (King, President, Prime Minister, Dictator, or citizen) choose (by their priorities) one of the options offered by the experts. Every citizen can do it. Choices depend on priorities, not on expertise.
In Errol Morris's excellent TV documentary on Robert McNamara (US Secretary of Defence 1961-68) "The fog of war" (2004) (see the transcript on the Internet) McNamara reminisces:
"The telephone rang; a person comes on and says "I'm Robert Kennedy. My brother, Jack Kennedy, would like you to meet our brother-in-law, Sargent Shriver."

4 o'clock Sarge comes in. Never met him "I've been authorized by my brother-in-law, Jack Kennedy, to offer you the position of Secretary of the Treasury."

I said, "You're out of your mind. I know a little bit about finance. But I'm not qualified to be Secretary of the Treasury". He said: "Anticipating that, the President-Elect authorized me to offer you the job of Secretary of Defence."
I said: "Look, I was in World War II for three years. But Secretary of Defence? I'm not qualified to be Secretary of Defence". "Well," he said, "anticipating that, would you at least do him the courtesy of agreeing to meet with him?"
So I go home and tell Marge [McNamara's wife A.O.] that if I could appoint every senior official in the department and if I could be guaranteed I wouldn't have to be part of that damn Washington social world… She said, "Well, okay, why don't you write a contract with the President, and if he'll accept those two conditions, do it." My total net income [as Director of Ford Company A.O.] at the time was of the order of $800,000, but I had huge unfulfilled stock options worth millions.

I was one of the highest paid executives in the world. And the future was of course brilliant. We had called our children in. Their life would be totally changed.

The salary of a Cabinet Secretary then was $25,000 a year. So we told the children they'd be giving up a few things. They could care less. Marge could care less.

It was snowing. The Secret Service took me into the house by the back way. I can still see it. There's a love seat, two armchairs with a lamp table in between. Jack Kennedy is sitting in one armchair and Bobby Kennedy's sitting in the other.

I said: "Mr. President, it's absurd, I'm not qualified."